Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

You're grasping at straws.

I've already told you you can't understand AL and that no comprehensible writing survives in AL. How can I show what doesn't exist.

History started 1200 years AFTER the invention of writing BECAUSE it's the only ancient writing we can understand.

Everything earlier is interpretation. Indeed, the only single thing left in pure AL is the Pyramid Texts and this is believed by Egyptologists to be incantation and magic.

There are just a few snippets of earlier history and I must point out that without exception each of these actually originated in the 19th century BC or later. I don't doubt their accuracy so much as their relevance.

Why don't you find some actual history supported by actual documentation from before 2500 or 2000 BC and prove me wrong?

No, I am not "grasping at straws". I know that you are merely repeating your favorite fantasy that you cannot support. That is why I demanded evidence. I also knew that none was going to be presented. All you have are weak accusations against others of doing exactly what you are doing.

So, any evidence or are you just gong to run away again?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is impossible to understand science without understanding metaphysics. You can garner expertise without metaphysics but it is difficult to see anomalies without understanding.

Oh, yes? And what do you really "understand" in metaphysics? Do you have a solid grasp of "being?" Of what sorts of "existence" actually exist and what those sorts of "existence" are actually like? Or how about identity, such as "is the proton identical to itself 10 seconds ago, and am I likewise?" Or more generally, what is the nature of the interaction between "existence" and "time?"

I'll tell you, I do not know how to answer those questions. And yet I still have a much stronger grasp of science than you give evidence of having.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have a solid grasp of "being?

Of course:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely, [F: poore]
The pangs of dispised Love, the Law’s delay, [F: dispriz’d]
The insolence of Office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear, [F: these Fardels]
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of Resolution
Is sicklied o'er, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment, [F: pith]
With this regard their Currents turn awry, [F: away]
And lose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia? Nymph, in thy Orisons

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; aye, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely, [F: poore]
The pangs of dispised Love, the Law’s delay, [F: dispriz’d]
The insolence of Office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear, [F: these Fardels]
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of Resolution
Is sicklied o'er, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment, [F: pith]
With this regard their Currents turn awry, [F: away]
And lose the name of Action. Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia? Nymph, in thy Orisons

That's just a small part of my "one-man show" on Shakespeare, the lunatic, the lover and the poet. I have about 2 solid hours of his work, tracking the course of his life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In such cases I use the Ignore function. It reduces the risk of me being reprimanded by the moderators and reduces damage to my mental health. There is nothing that poster produces that is worth reading.

I'm going to have to go back to that and just ignore responses to that nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't believe I've missed anything that I haven't addressed 1000 times before. Please let me know iff I did.

You haven't addressed anything. You post. No one seems to be able make any sense of it except that it is claims without support. I'm going to do what I should have stayed doing. Reject it all as unsupported conjecture and something akin to fan fiction and just put you on ignore.

Good luck to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I forced myself to read it many years ago and I don't remember it either.
I remember waiting for a bunch of finches to evolve into a butler, since I was sure the butler had dunnit. Far as I remember, there was no suggestion about who actually dunnit.

I thought it was Miss Scarlet in the conservatory with the fossilized leg bone of a hadrosaur.

 

[gnostic]

I do not even believe in conspiracies.

Except that you do.

Especially when you go on about Peer Review. Your twisted version of what Peer, the power you believe they have, are nothing more than absurd delusion of your own making.

Likewise, you go on and on about Egyptologists. No one is interested in what you have to say when the subject is not about Egypt. You keep bringing up ramps when no bring it up.

 

[cladking]

Or how about identity, such as "is the proton identical to itself 10 seconds ago, and am I likewise?"

Good question. You certainly can't step into the same river twice but does a proton change over a short time other than its position?

I'd wager there are numerous parameters in a constant state of flux, most of which are cyclical and influenced by internal and external forces. All I really know is that reality is infinitely complex and we might never understand even the basic forces using nothing but reductionistic science.

One doesn't need to have all the answers to understand what is known and the limitations of what is known. Indeed, every aspect of reality can be described once it is seen. It's not necessary to first understand everything. This is how consciousness leads to survival; understanding some parts of reality through experience and pattern recognition.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they did not. You misunderstood that article. And we are not talking hot springs here . That water would be live steam. And no, you.have just shown unbelievable ignorance.

On one hand you don't believe in God (you are an atheist, however you define it) you put down the Bible at any turn, then on the other hand you make suggestions as to what you think would improve a religion.

 

[gnostic]

NO. All life is "gifted" not with instinct but with consciousness.

You probably mean except for unicellular life, plants, fungi, and animals without a brain.

No! All life is individual and all life is conscious.

You keep using the word "ALL", but it is just another claim.

Unless you can support such claims, with evidence, they are simply baseless assumptions.

You keep claiming "all life is conscious", since you started posting here (at this thread), and yet you cannot cite neither sources that provided the necessary evidence & data, or provide evidence & data yourself.

Other members have already asked to present such evidence, all they get from you, is a run-around.

When are you ever going to learn that making up "claims" don't equate as being "evidence"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@YoursTrue you quoted me but there is no response. Do you want to know how I know that the water in the mantle (and it is not even "water") is so hot?

I will gladly do so, But you need to answer this one question. It does apply:

Do you know what drywall is? It is a building material. Are you familiar with it?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, science is evidence based. Models are created and then tested. Now if you want to define every test as an experiment, and I would be okay with that, then you can say that science is based upon experiment.

And I am sure that you have already been informed that Darwin did not rely on fossils for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution was formed during the infancy of paleontology. The evidence was lacking back then because only a small percentage of today's fossil lifeforms had been discovered. Darwin said that the fossil record would eventually support his theory, and it did. During his lifetime the first clear transitional fossil was discovered. But he never relied on fossils for his work at all.

You are fractally wrong once again.

Science is not always "evidence based." I've been reading Dr. Hawking's book and if you tell me he makes posits based on evidence, it's pretty wide, to say the least in a friendly manner. I've noticed a few things about certain God-deniers. They will deny at any cost.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue you quoted me but there is no response. Do you want to know how I know that the water in the mantle (and it is not even "water") is so hot?

I will gladly do so, But you need to answer this one question. It does apply:

Do you know what drywall is? It is a building material. Are you familiar with it?

Please do read my recent response to you. There are some times a person must move on, give up, etc. and leave the matter alone, outside my hands. Bye for now and have a good one. I'd sooner read Dr. Hawking's books. Hey, have a good one! (P.S. Maybe I'll share some thoughts of his with you some time. )

 

[cladking]

Other members have already asked to present such evidence, all they get from you, is a run-around.

No. I've addressed this a few times but it is ignored.

Even the unicellular slime mold uses an external memory. If it weren't conscious, what would be the point of "remembering" at all? This might be fun topic but I seriously doubt anyone wants to engage it. All life must adapt to specific conditions. An acorn must be oriented properly to have a chance to grow. Everything alive wants to live.

If you want details about slime molds or anything else I suggest wiki. They are always wrong but they almost always provide an easily understood overview.

 

[YoursTrue]

@YoursTrue you quoted me but there is no response. Do you want to know how I know that the water in the mantle (and it is not even "water") is so hot?

I will gladly do so, But you need to answer this one question. It does apply:

Do you know what drywall is? It is a building material. Are you familiar with it?

Here's my answer to you -- I don't believe much of what you say right now. Maybe another time. Nothing personal I suppose.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I thought it was Miss Scarlet in the conservatory with the fossilized leg bone of a hadrosaur.

Ms Scarlett. Get with the times, you old fossil...
(J/K)

 

[gnostic]

No. I've addressed this a few times but it is ignored.

Even the unicellular slime mold uses an external memory. If it weren't conscious, what would be the point of "remembering" at all? This might be fun topic but I seriously doubt anyone wants to engage it. All life must adapt to specific conditions. An acorn must be oriented properly to have a chance to grow. Everything alive wants to live.

If you want details about slime molds or anything else I suggest wiki. They are always wrong but they almost always provide an easily understood overview.

No, you have address it.

When a person (such as yourself) present a claim or model that differ from the current knowledge/information, then you either present evidence yourself or cite scientific sources.

Instead you add more claims, which would also require more evidence to the new claims.

 

[Audie]

Except that you do.

Especially when you go on about Peer Review. Your twisted version of what Peer, the power you believe they have, are nothing more than absurd delusion of your own making.

Likewise, you go on and on about Egyptologists. No one is interested in what you have to say when the subject is not about Egypt. You keep bringing up ramps when no bring it up.

Vtf. ( very true frubal)

 

[gnostic]

Science is not always "evidence based." I've been reading Dr. Hawking's book and if you tell me he makes posits based on evidence, it's pretty wide, to say the least in a friendly manner.

Which book?

Hawking is a "theoretical" physicist.

Do you understand that?

Theoretical physicists don't often do experiment.

Instead a theoretical physicist would find solutions through logical models, which they would often use maths, and in the case of theoretical astrophysics, very complex maths.

Maths aren't evidence, but maths are part of the explanation in scientific theories or hypotheses.

So if a physicist include equations with his or her explanation, then the equations are not true, until the testable evidence or experiment support the equations.

Take Albert Einstein for instance. He too was a theoretical physicist, and both Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915) started out being "theoretical", but other physicists have tested SR & GR models. That was how Relativity became a scientific theory.

So other physicists or other scientists would have to test his "theoretical" models.

But as I have asked earlier. Which book was talking about?

Until we know which book you have read, we cannot tell if his theoretical model was tested or not.